### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 15, 200 5 S es sio n NEAL ROBE RSON v . WEST NASHVIL LE DI ESEL , INC. Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-2452 Walte r C. K urtz, Judge

No. M2004- 01825-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Fe bruary 3, 2006

A re pa ir e r sol d e q u i p m e n ta tau c t i o n t o e n f o r c e i t s l i e n a n dc o l l e c ti t s c h ar g e s f o r r e p a i r s
. Ita l so attempted to collec t storag e cha rg es that had not be en ag ree d to. The t rial court found the re paire r wa s n ot e nti tle d to sto ra g e c ha rg e s, a ndwea g re e un de r the fa cts of th is cas e . T he tria l c ou rt a lso awa rded the owner

of the e quipment damag es for the diffe renc e in t h e fa i r m arket value of the equipment and the amount rece ived at auc tion. W e modify that awa rd to the measure authorized by statute in the absenc e of a challeng e to the auc t i o n p ro ce d u re s
. The trial c ourt found the r epair er v i o l at ed t h e T en n es s ee C o n s u m erP ro t ec t i o n Ac t , an dwe re v er s e t h ath o l d i n g.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Modif ied in Part

and Reverse d in P art
P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., joined.
For est A. Dura

rd, Jr., S helby ville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, West Nashville Diesel, I nc.
J onathan A. Stre et, Nashville, Te nnessee , for the a ppellee N eal Rober son. OP IN ION West Nashville Diesel, Inc. (WND) a g ree d to repair four ( 4) pieces of Ne al Roberson’s equipment, including some trucks and a C at L oader . Mr. Roberson pe rformed some g rading work for WND as pa

rtial payment for the repair. Mr. Roberson owe d WND a balanc e of $14,706 f rom the last repairs, which we re c ompleted in A ug ust of 2000. WND inf ormed Mr. Rober son that the repairs wer e complete d, but Mr. Roberson failed to make payment, and the f our (4) piece s of equipment re mained on WND’s pre mises for an e x tended pe riod. On May 28, 2002, WND notified Mr. Roberson by reg istered mail that, in addition to the repair bill of $14,706, Mr. Roberson also owe d $10 per ve h i cle per day for stora g e, totaling over $ 3 0 , 0 0 0

. Ac co rd i n g t o t h e M a y l e t t er s , i f M r. R o b er s o n d i dn o tp ayt h e r ep ai r b i l l an ds t o ra geTh e l e t t e r w a s d a t e d J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , a n d i n d i c a t e d a n a w a r e n e s s o f t h e u p c o m i n g a u c t i o n a n d n o t i f i e d W ND 1
t h at a w ar r an t t o r ec ov er t h e pr oper t y h ad bee n f i l ed.

T he t ri al co urt ref

used t o al l o w M r. R o b ers o n t o rai se f o r t he first tim e a t t he heari ng i ss ues r egard i ng t he 2

re a so n a b le n e ss o f t h e a u c tio n , f ind ing the issu e s w e re no t p le a d a n d r e fus ing s u c h a la te a m e n d m e n t to the c o m p la int. T h a t ru ling ha s n o t b e e n c h a llen g e d o n a p p e a l.

T he warrant t o recove r i s d at ed June 2 5 , 20 0 2 , whi ch act ual l y pred at es t he auct i o n. 3

T he t ri al co urt ap p roved t he Stat em ent of E vi d ence “as t o t ho se st at em ent s no t i nco nsi st ent wi t h t he f i nd i ng 4

o f M a y 6 , 2 0 0 4 .” -2- char g es by

J une 10, 2002, then WND would sell all four (4) piec es of e quipment at auction on J une 27 . M r. Rob e rs on didno t r e sp on d to the se le tte rs un til WND re c e ive d a c e rtif ie d le tte r f

ro m hi s attorney on J une 27 af

ter the auction had take n place

. 1
WND auctioned the equipment on J une 27, 2002 to enfor ce its lien for repairs. Thereis no dispute betwee n the parties on appeal a s to the exis tence of the lien and the proprie ty of the auction proce dures. At the auc tion, W ND boug ht three piece s o f the e quipment for the amount owed on

2 t h e r ep ai rs fo r e ac h v eh i cl e. T h e pu rp o rt ed s t o ra ge ch ar ges fo r ea ch v eh i cl e re m ai n ed o u t s t an d i n g. The Cat L oader

was sold to a third party

for $8,500.
Mr. Roberson filed immediate ly in General Sessions Court t o rec over the vehicles. For 3
rea sons not appare nt in the rec ord, the matter was not he ard for ove r a y ear , and on Aug ust 21, 2003, the Gene ral Sessions Court ordere d WND to return the ve hicles to Mr. Roberson. WND appea led to Circuit Court. Meanwhile, threepiece s of equipment re mained in WND’s possession.
Mr

. Rob e rs on fi le d a n Am e nd e d Co mpl a int in C ir c uit

Cou rt a lle g ing , amon g oth e r thin g s, tha t WN D h a d u n l a w f

u l l y r e t a i n e d a n d s o l d h i s p r o p e rt y
. H e a l l e g e d W N D w a s n o t e n t i t l e dto storag e fe es and that WND’s attempt t o co l l ec t t h e fees amounted to a violation of the Tenne ssee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47- 18-101 et seq . (“TCPA”) . WND filed a c ounter complaint seeking a judg ment for the r epair costs and storag e fee s it a lleg es remained outstanding afte r the ve hicles we re auctioned, in the total amount of $32,726.14.
The matter

was tried on May

5, 2004. There is no transcript of the proc eeding s befor e the trial court, only a S tatement of the Evi dence

. The trial court iss ued it s Memorandum and Orde r on 4 May 6, 2004. The trial court found WND’s repairs wer e authoriz ed and the char g es of $14,714 we re re a so na ble

. Ho we ve r, the c ou rt a wa rd e d $12 ,0 00 in c omp e ns a tory dama g e s r e su lti ng fr om the los s of Mr. Rober son’s property , which the court determined was the diffe renc e betwe en the f air mar ket value of the equipment and the out standing repair bills. As to the s torag e fees, the trial court f ound WND never informed Mr. Roberson t hat s torag e charg es would be or wer e being incurre d and WND delay ed enf

orce ment of its lien on the equipment while those undisclose d storag e fe es mounted. The trial court f

ound no statutory

or other a

uthority for the f ees. Si nce the re w as no ag ree ment by Mr. Roberson to pay

storag e fe es, couple d with WND’s delay in attempt i n g t o co llect them, then Mr. Rob e rs on ow e d n o s tor a g e fe e s.A l t ho ug h t he tri al co urt als o cit ed T en n. C o d e A nn
. § 6 6

- 1 9

- 1 0 3 , t ha t sec t i o n d ea l s wit h ga rag e k ee p er’s l i en s, 5

an i s s ue s epar at e f

r om t he l i en for r epai r s , as di s cus s ed bel ow.
T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t ad d re ss o the r c o sts, so W N D ’s f a il u re to p ro v e c o sts o f t h e sa le , etc ., p re c lud e s its 6

rec o ve ry of any suc h c o st s.

T h e c o u rt n o te d tha t fo r sev e ra l re a so n s, re tur n o f t h e e q u ip m e n t t o M r. R o b e rs o n w a s n o lo n g e r a n a p p ro p ria te 7

re m e d y. W e a g r e e , a n d a ltho u g h M r. R o b e rs o n ’s o rig ina l f ili n g in G e n e ra l S e ssio n s C o u rt a sk e d fo r re c o v e ry o f his p ro p e rty, h e d o e s n o t d isa g re e w ith the c o u rt’s d e te rm ina tio n tha t re tur n ing the e q u ip m e n t t o him w a s n o lo n g e r fe a sib le or des i r abl e. -3- The trial c ourt found WND’s attempts to collec t a storag e fe e under these c ircumstance s amounted to an unf

air and dece pti v e ac t i n violation of the TCPA. Under the T CPA, the court awa rded Mr . Roberson $3,000 in damag es plus attorney ’s fe es of $6,000.
We r evie w t h i s ca se de novo on the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness of the trial c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f

a ct, un les s the pr e po nd e ranc e of thee vid e nc e is o the rw ise . T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 13 (d ); Brooks v. Brook

s , 992 S.W .2d 403, 404 (Tenn. 1999) . No pre sumption of corre ctness attac hes to the trial court’ s decisions reg arding questions of law. W ilson v. W

ilson , 984 S. W

. 2 d 8 9 8 , 900 (Tenn. 1998)

. I. R E P AI R C OSTS
As stated ea

rl i er , t h er e is no dispute that W ND wa s owed for the re pairs it made to Mr. Roberson’s ve hicle. According to WND, the amount owing for r epair s was $14,706.14. The trial cou rt fo u n d the re pairs and c harg es there for a ppropriate and re asonable . Mr. Roberson doe s not assert on appea l that he did not owe the r epair char g es or that they

wer e unre asonable . The trial c ourt also found that WND was e ntitled to enforceits statutoryrepairer’ s lien by sale at a uction pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66- 14-101 et seq

. 5 The propriety of the auction proce dures ha s not been c halleng ed. Ac cording ly , WND was entitled to use the proc eeds f rom the auction to satisfy the repair bills (as well as c osts of the sale)

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66- 14-106. The balance is due to t h e o ri gi n al owner of the e quipment sold, here in Mr. Roberson. Id

. WND bid in f

or three of the piece s of equipment for the outstanding repair bill o n ea ch. Con se qu e ntl y , th e rewe reno e xce ss pr oc e e ds fr om theauc tio n a s to tho se thr e e pie c e s to re turn to Mr. Roberson. As to the f ourth piece , a CAT loader , WND sold it for $8,500, or actua lly rec eived in trade othe r equipment worth that amount. The outst anding repair cha rg es on that vehic le totaled $7,141, so Mr. Roberson wa s entitled to the differ ence of $1,359 abse nt other costs owe d to WND. 6
The trial c ourt awa

rde d Mr. Roberson $12,000 in dama g es re prese nting the dif fer ence b et we e n t h e o u t s t an d i n g re p ai r b i l l s an dt h e f ai r m ark etv al u e o f t h e e q u i p m en ts o l d , ev en t h o u gh it decided WND wa s entitled to sell the property to rec over its repair bills. Absent allegations of 7A f t er dec i d i ng t hat ret urn o f t he vehi cl es or equipm ent t o M r. R o b ers o n was not an ap p rop ri at e reme d y , t he 8

co urt de t erm i ned t hat da m ages were t he ap p rop ri at e reme d y
. W e i nt erpret t he o rder as f i nd i ng any remed y or rel i ef due
o nly b ec au se o f

t he co urt’ s f

i nd i ng t ha t no st o rag e f ee s w ere o w ed

. H o w ev er, t he re w as a va l i d l i en fo r t he rep air co st s, an d t he au cti o n w as a p p ro p riat ely he l d t o en fo rce t ha t l i en
. M r. R o b erso n d i d no t suf fer the lo ss o f

his p ro p erty b ec au se o f t h e sto ra g e fee c la im s. -4- impropriety

reg arding the sale, the fair marke t value of the equipment was determined by the sale. We can f ind no authority for an awa rd t o the owner

of the diff

ere nce be tween an alleg ed fair marke t value and char g es that wer e owe d when ther e is no cha lleng e to the validity of the proc edure s used to s e ll the e qu ipm e nt. To thec on tr ary , T e nn . Co de An n. § 6 6- 14 -1 06 pr ov ide s:
I f the g oods are sold, from the proc eeds of such sale the ar t i s an shall satisfy the artisan’ s lien, including the rea so n ab l e charg es of notice , advertisement, and sale. The ba lance , if any , of the proc eeds sha ll be held by the artisan, and deliver ed on demand to the pe rson to whom th e ar t i s an woul d have be en bound to deliver or jus tif ie d inde liv e ri ng theg oo ds

. The trial c ourt clea

rly awa rded Mr. Roberson $12,000 in damag es re sulting fr om the loss of his pr op e rty , f

ind ing that a mou nt t o b e “ the dif fe re nc e be tw e e n th e fair

mark e t valueof

theve hic le he sold at auc tion and the amount he owe d for the r epair s.” The c ourt also clea rly held that WND 8
wa s e nti tl ed to it s repair c os ts. Ho we ve r, theon ly e vid e nc e in the re c or d a s to a ny a lle g e d f a ir marke t value of the four piece s of equipment is Mr

. Roberson’s testimonyas set out in the Statement of the Evidenc e. Acc ording to this testimony , the total value of a ll the equipment was only $12,450. Thus, if the re pair c osts are actua lly deducte d from the value, Mr. Roberson would not be entitled to any rec overy under the trial court’ s rea soning be causethe fair marke t value did not ex ce ed the re pair c os ts. We c a n o nly

c on c lud e that th e tria l c ou rt simply ma de a n e rr or

in i ts c a lc ulatio ns
. Onapp e a l, M r. Rob e rs on do e s not ar g ue that th e me a su reof dama g e s a

pp lic ableto a

va lid sale to enf

orce a lien does not a

pply

. I nstead, he arg ues that the $12,000 was awa rded a s damag es for the T CPA viol ation. That argu m en t i s n o t s upported by the lang uag e of the order . As set out e arl ie r, thetria l c ou rt e xpla ine d the ba sis fo r its aw ard of $1 2, 00 0. Ad dition a lly , th e c ou rt , late r i n its order, madean aw ard of “additional dama g es” of

$3,000 for violation of the TCPA.
The proce eds of the sale exceeding the repair cost totaling $1,359 is awar ded Mr. Rober son pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 66-14-106. The trial court’s judgme nt f or $12,000 to Mr. Roberson i s m o d i f i e da c c o r d i n g l y.

II. S TOR A GE C HA R GES
WND a sserts a rig ht to char g e for storag e of Mr . Roberson’s e quipment and to enfor ce a lien fo r t h o s e c h ar ges , re l y i n g o n a “ c o m m o n l aw s t o ra ge l i en ” a n dci t i n g Diamond Serv ice Station v.W e n o t e that t he st atuto ry l i en reli ed o n by W N D , T en n. C o d e A nn
. § 6 6

- 1 9

- 1 0 3 (relati ng t o ga rag ek ee p ers, 9

w hich i nc l ud es e st ab l i shm en t s fo r t he rep air o f ve hicles), cre ates a ri gh t t o a li en “unti l all rea so na b l e c ha rge s due are p ai d

. ” S ub sect i o n (a)( 4 ) l i m i t s t he ri ght to st o rage fees in cert ai n c i rcum st ances t hat no p art y has al l eged exi st herei n. T en n
. Code An n
. § 55- 23- 103 l i mi t s on e wh o s t or es m ot or ve h i cl es t o 60 day s of s t or ag e ch ar g es w i t h ou t a g r ee men t by the o w n e r, a b se n t no tice o f t h e inte n t t o im p o se fee s b e yo n d 6 0 d a ys, b u t tha t p ro v isio n d o e s n o t a p p ly in c o u n ties w ith
a m e tro p o lit a n fo rm o f go v e rn m e n t, e .g ., D a v id so n C o u n ty, w h e re W N D is l o c a te d

.

T hes e provi s i ons aut hor i ze t he awar d of up “ t hr ee t i mes t he a ctu a l d a m a g es sus t ai ned ” i n t he case of a wi l l f ul 10 or k nowi ng vi ol at i on of t he T C P A an d s et out t he f act ors t o be cons i dere d i n maki ng s uch an awar d. T he t r i al cour t s et fort h a ut hor i t y for i t s di s cr et i on t o awar d an a mo un t l es s t han “ t r ebl e t he com pens at ory damages

. ” -5- Broadway Motor Co. , 12 S.W .2d 705 (Tenn. 1928) and J. L. McJ unkin v. Chattanooga Garage , 63 S.W .2d 517 (Tenn. 1933) , and likening such a lien to a g ara g e kee per’ s or stable ke eper ’s lien.
Whether or n o t an yg ener al common law lien f or storag e costs may

have survived the e na c tme nt o f s pe c if

ic statut ory

lie ns , any

e nti tle me nt to su c h a lie n re sts on a n a c tual ob lig a tio n to pay the storag e costs. See D iamond Servic e Station , 12 S.W .2d at 706. The trial c ourt here in found 9 that there was no a g ree ment by Mr. Roberson to pay storag e fe es and, thus, such f ees w erenot part o f a n y co n tra ctfo r r ep ai r b et we en t h e p ar t i es
. T h e e v i d en ce cl earl y s u p p o rt s t h i s fi n d i n g.
Othe r f a c ts pr e se nt he re in a lso pr e c lud e WND fo r r e lying on a ny “ sto ra g e lie n” a s th e ba sis for its entitlement to storag e fe es. First, WND did not put M r. Roberson on notice that it intended to c ha rg e sto ra g e . T he rewa s c le arl y no a g re e me nt o r ev e n n oti c e of thea mou nt i t in te nd e d to char g e. Second, WND madeno eff ort for y ear s to bill for (eve n though it pe riodically billed f or the repair costs) or to c ollect any storag e fe es or to enf

orce any purported lien w hile the undisclosed storag e fe es mounted. Taking all these fa cts into consideration, we, like the trial c ourt, find WND is n ot e nti tle d to c oll e c t or re c ov e r s tor a g e fe e s.
III . C ONS UM E R P ROT E CT I ON A CT
Al tho ug h we a g re e wi th the tria l c ou rt that WND is n ot e nti tle d to re c ov e r s tor a g e fe e s inthi s la ws uit , we c a nn ot ag re e that WND’ s noti fi c a tio n to Mr. Rob e rs on that it e xpe c te d p a y me nt o f tho se fee s was an unfair or dece ptive act in violation of t he TCP A t hat entit led M r. R oberson to dama g es un de r that A c t.
The trial court found “the attempt of [W ND], under the f acts and circ umstances of this case, to char g e more than $31,000 in storag e is an unfair and de ceptive a ct in violation of T.C.A. § 47-18- 104.” The court a war ded dama g es under the TC PA, citing Tenn. C ode Ann. § 47-18-109(a )(3) and (4 ), “f o r t h e a t t em p tb y

t h e d ef en d an tt o ch ar ge t h es e u n au t h o r i z ed an d/ o r u n co n s ci o n ab l y h i gh 10 storag e fe es to the plaintiff.” Reg ardle ss of whethe r the trial court’s finding of a violation of the TCPA can be a ffirme d, Mr . Ro be rs on is n ot e nti tle d to a ny dama g e s un de r the TCP A. A p arty wh o “ su ff

e rs a n a sc e rt a ina

ble los s o f m on e y

or pr op ert y ” as a

re su lt o f an u nf

a ir or de c e pti ve a c t of

a no the r m a y

bring a privateT h a t l e tter fro m M r. R o b e rs o n ’s atto rn e y c h a llen g e d the va lid ity o f t h e up c o m ing a u c ti o n b e c a u s e the b ill 11 i ncl uded s t orag e c har ges i n e xce s s of t hos e a l l owed by a s t at ut e not i n ef fect i n D avi dson C ount y an d al s o cha l l eng ed t he am o unt due fo r r ep ai rs argui ng other arr angem ent s had be en m a d e
. T he t ri al co urt s p eci f i cal l y fo und t hat t he evi dence di d n ot s how t hat t he al t er nat i ve ar r ang ement ar gu ed by M r
. R ob er s on had been mad e and, i ns t ead, s howed tha t M r. R o b e rs o n o w e d $ 1 4 ,7 0 0 in re p a ir c o sts. -6- action under

the TCPA to recove r “a ctual dama g es.” Te nn. Code An n
. § 47-18-109( a). Mr

. Rob e rs on faile d to pr ov e that hesu ff e re d th e los s o f h is e qu ipm e nt o r any oth e r “ a sc e rt a ina

blelos s” a s are su l t o f W N D ’ s a t t e m p t , i n i t s M a y 2 0 0 2 l e t t e r s , t o c h ar g e h i m s t o r a g e c o s t s
. H e l o st h is equipment bec ause it wa s lawfully auctioned of

f to pay valid and long -owe d repair bills.
Mr. R oberson left his equipment i n WND’s car e and did not pay his repair bill for a period of y ear s even thoug h he wa s contac ted about it periodica lly . As the trial court found, and wehave aff irmed, WND was e ntitled to sell hi s property to rec over the o u t s t an d i n g re pair c harg es. It was e nti tled to con du c t th e auc tio n, a ft e r n oti c e to M r. Rob e rs on , u nle ss M r. Rob e rs on paid tho se char g es.
Af te r r e c e ivi ng the May 20 02 no tic e s th a t hi s e qu ipm e nt w ou ld b e so ld, Mr . Ro be rs on did not contact WND to make a rrang ements to pay

his bil l

. W h i l e h e arg ues that the a ddition of the $3 1, 00 0 insto ra g e c os ts m a de it i mpo ssi blefo r h im t o p a y thetot a l a mou nt d e ma nd e d inthetim e g iven him, he did not ask WND to remove the storag e char g es or otherw ise cha lleng e them except by communication that re ache d WND a fter the sale ha d taken plac e. He did not attend the a uction 11 and bid the re p air cost amount. Tellingly , there is no proof in the re cord that he was prepar ed or wi lli ng to p a y

there pair

c os ts o r m ake arr a ng e me nts fo r the ir pay me nt.
Under these fa cts, we c onclude that Mr. Robe rson di d n o t p rove that he suffe red any asce rtainable loss of property or m oney as a r esult of the ac t that the trial court f ound to violate the TCPA, i.e. , W N D ’ s a t t e m p t t o c h ar g e t h e s t o r a g e f e e s
. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e a w ar d o f $3 00 0 in damag es made under the TCPA mustbe re verse d.
Wit h reg ard to the a war d of attorne y ’s fees under the TCPA, such fee s are authorized by Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 7- 18 -1 09 (e )( 1) , w hic h p ro vid e s: Upon a finding by the court that a provision of this pa rt has bee n violated, the court may a wa rdto the pe rs on bring ing su c h a c tio n r e a so na blea tto rn e y ’s fe e s a ndc os ts.
Un de r the wo rd ing of thi s p ro vis ion , th e reis n o r e qu ir e me nt that dama g e s b e a wa rd e d a s a prer equisite to an aw ard of attorney ’s fees. Howeve r, this provision cannot be r ead in isolation and must be construed with othe r sec tions, particularly the provision reg arding a private rig ht of ac tion fo r d a ma g e s. Mr . Rob ers on didno t bring a n a c tio n f or inj un c tiv e or

de c laratory

re lie f, a s is authorized in Tenn

. Code Ann. § 47-18- 109(b). Unde r that sec tion of the TCPA, a party who has been or is “aff ecte d by a violation” of the TCPA may bring an action for a dec laratory

judgme nt andS u c h a p riv a te law su it is a v a ilab le o n ly i f t h e d ivisio n o f co n su m e r a ffa irs h a s n o t b ro u g h t a p rio r a c tio n
. 12

E v e n if

he ha d a lleg e d a vio la tio n o f T e n n
. C o d e A n n
. § 4 7 -1 8 -1 0 4 (b )( 2 7 ), W N D ’s a c tio n s in se n d ing him 13 l e t t e r s a t t e mp t i n g t o c h a r g e s t or a g e f e e s w a s n ot a de c e pt i v e a c t or pr a c t i c e w i t h i n t h e me a n i n g of t h e T CPA. -7- injunctive relief

. Tenn

. Code Ann. § 47-18- 109(b)

. I nstead, he broug h t an ac t ion for money 12 dama g e s a lle g ing he su ff

e re d an a sc e rt a ina

blelos s a s a

re su lt o f an u nf

a ir or de c e pti ve a c t.
Be causeMr. Rob er s o n failed to proveany loss resulting f

rom the May

2002 letters fr om WND refle cting a storag e cha rg e, his claim under

Tenn

. Co d e An n
. § 47-18-109( a)( 1) wa s not su staine d andsh ou ld h a ve be e n d ism iss e d. I n th a t si tuatio n, wefi ndthea wa rdof a tto rn e y ’s fe e s is not authorized

. Even if wewer e to re ad Te nn. C o d e An n . § 47-18-109( e)( 1) as authorizi ng the awa rd of attorney ’s fe es where the damag e claim in a lawsuit based on T enn. Code Ann. § 47- 18-109(a )(1) is n ot s us ta ine d, wec on c lud e that atto rn e y ’s fe e s shou ld not ha ve be e n a wa rd e d inthi s c a se be c aus e WND did not viol ate the T CPA bysending letters attempting to char g e for storag e.
Mr. Roberson did not alleg e a T CPA viol ation in either his Gene ral Sessions Court warr ant to rec over pr operty

or in his orig inal filings in the Circuit Court. He amended his complaint on May 4, 2004, and included an alleg ation that WND’s “failure to honor the ag ree ment betwee n the parties and attempt to cha

rg e unfair and unsolicited storag e and r epair fee s is an unf

air a ct or pra ctice aff ecting the co n d u ct of any trade or commer ce” and, conse quently , violative of the TCPA. Mr. Roberson did not cite to any particula r provision of the TCPA. The TCPA prohibits and makes unlawful “unfair or dece ptive acts or prac tices af fec ting the c on du c t of a ny tr a de or c omm e rc e .” Te nn
. Cod e An n. § 4 7- 18 -1 04 (a ). A n umb e r o f s pe c if ic un fair or dec eptive ac ts are de scribed and decla red to be violations of the Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18- 104(b). Among those specif ic l istings is a g ener al “c atcha ll” provision: “eng ag ing in any other a ct or pra ctice w hich is dece ptive to the consumer or to any other person.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47- 18- 104(b)( 27). Since Mr. Rober son only alleg ed that WND’s ac tions were u n fair, he clea rly did not alleg e a violation of the catc hall provision. 13 WND arg ues that the only provision of the TCPA that is at issue is the “catchall” violation provision. Howeve r, subsec tion (a) still applies and explicitly is not limit ed by the enumer ation of specific acts and prac tices in subsection (b) . Thus, the question is whether the ac tions of WND fo un d b y thetria l c ou rt

to v iol a te theTCP A w e reun fair a c ts o r p ra c tic e s. Although the question of whe ther spec ific conduc t is “unfair” or “de ceptive” is a question of fa ct, the standa

rds to be used in answe ring that question, i.e ., the def initions of those terms, are questions of l aw to be decided by the courts. Ga nz e v oo rt v . R us se ll , 949 S.W .2d 293, 296 and 298 (T e nn . 1 99 7) ; Tuc k e r v. Sie rra Bu ild e rs , No. M2003-02372-COA- R3-CV, 2005 WL 1021675, at * 4 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . April 2 9, 20 05 ) ( pe rm . a pp . d e nie d Oc t. 24 , 2 00 5) . Wh ile theGe ne ral A sse mbl y-8-

p r o h i b i t e d“ u n f

a i r ” a n d“ d e c e p t i v e ” a c t s i n t h e T C P A , i t d i d n o t d e f i n e t h o s e t e r m s
. C o n s e q u e n t l y, it is left up to the courts to define them. Ga nz e v oo rt , 949 S.W .2d at 300. The terms must be given meaning in the context of the TCPA; t he def initions are flexibl e; and r esort to ca ses interpre ting the same terms in feder al leg islation is appropriate. Id . at 298-99.
Wit h reg ard to the de finition of “unfair” as used i n the TC PA, an act “should not be dee med unfair ‘ unless the act or prac tice cause s or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers whic h is n ot r e a so na

bly a vo ida bleby c on su me rs the mse lve s and no t ou tw e ig he d b y c ou nte rv a ili ng be ne fi ts to consumers or to the c ompetition.’” Tuc k e r v . S ie rra Bu ild e rs , 2005 WL

10216 7 5 , at * 5, (adopting the standard applicable to the Fe dera l Trade Commi ssion se t out in 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(n)). Measur ed ag ainst this st andar d, or similar ones desc ribing the ki nd of abusive busine ss prac tices the TCPA was desig ned to pre vent, the evide nce in this ca se pre ponderates ag ainst the finding the WND’s attempt to char g e storag e fe es wa s an unfair ac t that violated the TCPA.
IV. C ONCL US I ON
Acc ording ly , the judg ment of t h e C i rc u it Court finding a violation of the T ennesse e Con su me r P ro te c tio n A c t c la im anda wa rd ing $3 ,0 00 in dam age s a nd$6 ,0 00 in atto rn e y ’s fe e s is reve rsed . Theadditional judgme nt ag ainst WND for $12,000 is modified to a war d $1,359 to Mr. Roberson for

excess proce eds re ceive d from the sa le of the e q u i pment. Costs of the appea l are div ide d e qu a lly

be tw e e n th e pa

rtie s.

____________________________________

PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE